Blog Layout

Sexual Harassment under Irish Law - A Guide


What is ‘harassment’ under Irish Employment Law?


The Labour Court in the case of Nail Zone Ltd v A Worker, Labour Court Determination EDA 1023, 10 November 2010, defined the law in relation to harassment as follows:


“The essential characteristics of harassment within this statutory meaning is that the conduct is (a) unwanted and (b) that it has either the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. This suggests a subjective test and if the impugned conduct had the effect referred to at paragraph (b) of the subsection, whether or not that effect was intended, and whether or not the conduct would have produced the same result in a person of greater fortitude than the complainant, it constitutes harassment for the purpose of the Acts.”


It is also worth citing the Department of Equality and Law Reform’s Code of Practice on Measures to Protect the Dignity of women and men at work (1994) on the point that the focus in this definition is upon how the conduct was regarded by the recipient rather than upon the motive or intention of the perpetrator.


Sexual Harassment and Irish Employment Equality Law


Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, broadly defines sexual harassment as:


 “any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, being conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.”


It is also worth noting the Employment Equality Act 1998 (Code of Practice) (Harassment) Order 2012, which provides a non-exhaustive list of examples:


Physical conduct of a sexual nature


This may include unwanted physical contact such as unnecessarily touching, patting or pinching or brushing against another employee’s body, assault or coercive sexual intercourse.


Verbal conduct of a sexual nature


This includes unwelcome sexual advances, propositions or pressure for sexual activity, continued suggestions for social activity outside the work place after it has been made clear that such suggestions are unwelcome, unwanted or offensive flirtations, suggestive remarks, innuendos or lewd comments.


Non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature


This may include the display of pornographic or sexually suggestive pictures, objects, written materials, e-mails, text-messages or faxes. It may also include leering, whistling or making sexual gestures.


Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work


The Employment Equality Act 1998 (Code of Practice) (Harassment) Order 2012 S.I. No. 208 of 2012 sets out a Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work (Code of Practice). This Code of Practice is issued as a guideline for employers and employees. The provisions of the code are admissible in evidence in proceedings before an Adjudication Hearing of the Workplace Relations Commission.


The Code, amongst other things, sets out the scope of sexual harassment provisions: "The scope of the sexual harassment and harassment provisions extend beyond the workplace, for example to conferences and training that occur outside the workplace. It may extend to work-related social events.”


Harassment outside of the Workplace


Does harassment outside of work, by an employer or colleague, have any relevance? 


It is worth examining the case of A Limited Company v One Female Employee (EE10/1998), where the Equality Officer concluded that “within the scope of employment” can include events outside of the workplace. In that case, the claimant was allegedly harassed by two colleagues during a residential company training programme in a hotel. 


Burden of Proof in Sexual Harassment Cases


Ordinarily, the onus is on the employer to prove that no sexual harassment occurred.


There is significant case law in support of this position, the starting point would be the decision of the Labour Court in Southern Health Board v Mitchell (AEE/99/E) a decision which remains the leading decision on the shifting of the burden of proof. The Court considered the extent of the evidential burden which a claimant must discharge before a prima facie case of discrimination can be made out:


“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.


It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the Respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”


Notwithstanding legal precedent, all cases rests on their own particular facts and evidence.


Defence to Claim of Sexual Harassment


Section 14A (2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 provides that it shall be a defence for an employer to show that it took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent sexual harassment occurring in the workplace and in circumstances where such harassment has occurred it took action to reverse its effect.


Employers are legally responsible for the sexual harassment and harassment of employees carried out by co-employees, clients, customers or other business contacts of the employer. It is a defence for the employer to prove that he/she took reasonably practicable steps to prevent:


— the employee from being harassed

— the employee from being treated differently in the workplace or in the course of employment and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse the effects of it.


In order to rely on this defence employers must show that they have comprehensive, accessible, effective policies that focus on prevention, best practice and remedial action, and also accessible effective complaints procedures. The measures taken to put the policies and procedures into practice will also be taken into account by courts and tribunals: employers will not be able to rely on an excellent policy if it has not been effectively implemented. 


The Labour Court has consistently held that in order for an employer to avail of the first component of this defence it must show, at a minimum, that a clear anti-harassment or dignity at work policy was in place before the sexual harassment occurred and that the policy was effectively communicated to staff. 

Share

Remote  work laws in Ireland
by RG343171 16 August 2024
The case of Aline Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600) examines the obligations employers have, under Irish law, when a request for remote work is made by an employee. As the law in Ireland currently stands, there is no right to remote work per se. This may be overcome when an individual has been guaranteed remote work in their contract of employment or remote work has been determined to constitute a reasonable accommodation in accordance with relevant employment legislation, where applicable. However, none of these exceptions applied in the present case.
Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act
9 August 2024
The case of Dean Hart v Komfort Kare (ADJ00051923) examines the circumstances under which a request for time off, by a parent, from their employer, must be given due consideration. Dean Hart (the Complainant) brought a complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 against Komfort Kare (the Respondent) to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), alleging that they denied him the right to take force majeure despite extenuating circumstances.
Constructive Dismissal and Sexual Harassment
31 July 2024
The case of Care Worker v Costern Unlimited Company (ADJ00046268) examines the circumstances under which it will be deemed reasonable for an employee to resign and bring a claim of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal on foot of a failure of their employer to properly investigate their complaints.
Payment of notice pay after probation
6 June 2024
The case of Eric Bentley v Carcharger EV Limited (ADJ00050468) examines the circumstances under which an employee will be entitled to a payment in lieu of notice if dismissed during their probationary period. This is a very interesting case, as it was brought under the payment of wages provisions, but decided upon under notice legislation.
Interview discrimination
5 June 2024
The case of A Job Applicant v A Public Body (ADJ00049321) examines the burden of proof in discrimination claims, particularly when discrimination is being claimed at the interview stage.
The Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Claims in Ireland
3 June 2024
The case of Mark Lowry v JJ Fleming and Company Limited (ADJ00036677) examines the burden of proof issues that often arise in constructive dismissal claims. Uniquely, the employer offered no substantive evidence to support their case, yet won, highlighting the very difficult hurdles an employee often faces in bringing an unfair dismissal claim following their resignation.
Show More
Share by: